Socialists in the US and progressives

[RGacky3]

With the polarization of the United states right now, what I think the focus of Socailists in the United States should be right now is progressives (which make up the majority of Americans), I think its a serious mistake to to isolate from the mainstream Amercan center-left.

Most progressives care about these issues:
Democratic weakness
Obamas not keeping promises
Healthcare
Corporate power in washington
The large banks total control of the economy and washington
Unemployment, layoffs and stagnating wages
Bailouts without any accountability
Militarism
Corporate Greed

What Socialists in the United States need to do is to join up with progressives, support them, and try and pull them more left. For example, isntead of arguing for bank regulations and "give us our money back" start demanding socialization of banks, i.e. if your making profits from Tax-payer backed money, that money belongs to the American people, continue demanding single payer healthcare, and definately make a big issue out of campain finance reform, I also know that unions like the AFL-CIO are not exactly revolutionary, but they are 100 times more democratic than corporations.

There was a thread about Bernie Sanders earlier, and many here don't want to support him because he's not an actual Socialist, the fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans are progressive, and socio-economically left leaning, that is WITH the right wing media and everything to the right pulling them that way, the far left in America should'nt shun progressives, the far left should join them and start giving alternatives, actual democratic alternatives.

What happened with healthcare and the bailouts have let down progressives in America, now is the time to support the progressive movement and pull it toward a socialistic one. That includes unions, community projects, local politics, and so on and so forth, making demands from politicans and the such.

Reformism is not the answer, but we have to start somewhere.

[Ele'ill]

I recall making a few posts stating the same thing although not as specific. We need to be considering our allies with a "what can they help us with" instead of a "what are they lacking." attitude.

[Red Commissar]

There are two issues here,

-First, your claim that the majority of Americans are "progressive" is false.

-Second, the socialists in the 60s and 70s attempted doing this. Max Schachtman began this trend, increasingly disillusioned with the prospects of socialism, began advocating for socialists to back progressive minded Democrats in order to achieve social change. They believed that this might push them, in time, towards socialism. Has this happened yet? Not quite.

We can share some common positions but we shouldn't mistake that for us openly backing them in the current political atmosphere. The problem is ultimately the American political system does not favor progressive opinions. Even if you manage to get one or two Democrats in, there are hundreds more who are not progressive in any sense of the word.

[graymouser]

The problem is, most "progressives" (including Bernie Sanders) in the US are hopelessly entangled with the Democratic Party. Until they get out of the "graveyard of social movements," communists will correctly criticize them. I think this is a matter of bedrock principle.

In terms of support, well, electoral support isn't going to happen until there is a workers party as a real third party. On all the other things you mention, communists are frankly among the best movement builders and liberals have simply not shown up for many of the fights. So I'm not sure what further engagement you think we should have - start showing up at protests and you'll find plenty.

[RGacky3]

-First, your claim that the majority of Americans are "progressive" is false.


Based on public opinion, when its comes to socio-economic issues most are more progressives, most Americans are for public healthcare, most are for more public control of the financial system, most are for a progressive tax, most are pro-union, and so on.


-Second, the socialists in the 60s and 70s attempted doing this. Max Schachtman began this trend, increasingly disillusioned with the prospects of socialism, began advocating for socialists to back progressive minded Democrats in order to achieve social change. They believed that this might push them, in time, towards socialism. Has this happened yet? Not quite.

The 60s and 70s were much different times then they are now, the issues then were the war, and social issues (womens rights, civil rights, homosexual rights), Nowerdays its different, class tensions are becoming more and more evident, people now are not worried so much about social issues and more and more about economic/class issues. Nowerdays the United States face of socialism are people like Michael Moore, its become more mainstream.


We can share some common positions but we shouldn't mistake that for us openly backing them in the current political atmosphere. The problem is ultimately the American political system does not favor progressive opinions. Even if you manage to get one or two Democrats in, there are hundreds more who are not progressive in any sense of the word.

I get waht your saying, however progressives generally have a lot of pull on the local level, so starting there would be beneficial, on the national level where there is much more corporate control its different, but progressives are making a major comeback.


The problem is, most "progressives" (including Bernie Sanders) in the US are hopelessly entangled with the Democratic Party. Until they get out of the "graveyard of social movements," communists will correctly criticize them. I think this is a matter of bedrock principle.

Its fine to criticize them from a left point of view, but to stick dogmatically to only Marxist organizations is a huge mistake, we need to pull the progressives left, not let the only pressure be from the right, the democratic party is by no means a progressive party, however, there are many real progressives in the party, that genuinely want to stop corporate power.


In terms of support, well, electoral support isn't going to happen until there is a workers party as a real third party. On all the other things you mention, communists are frankly among the best movement builders and liberals have simply not shown up for many of the fights. So I'm not sure what further engagement you think we should have - start showing up at protests and you'll find plenty.

Protests are good and fine, but thats just one front, (btw, I'm not talking about liberals, I'm talking about progressives, there is a difference).

[Bud Struggle]

Gack, I don't know who take the prize around for living in the land of makebelieve: you or Drmezel. He's thinking Mao is still alive and you are thinking the CNT can make a comeback.

At leat Marxism has an agenda.

[RGacky3]

Gack, I don't know who take the prize around for living in the land of makebelieve: you or Drmezel. He's thinking Mao is still alive and you are thinking the CNT can make a comeback.


Or you for thinking America is the beakon of freedom and democracy and that most people are happy with AMerican Capitalism, or you for thinkin that the free market has'nt failed, or you for thinking that socialism is dead in the world, or you for thinking that all it takes is hard work and a little whit for everyone to become middle class, or you for thanking the troops for your freedom, or you for thinking that classes don't matter anymore, or you for a number of other dillusional insane ideas.

As far as the CNT ... make a comeback? They are already a major force in Spain and France as syndicalst unions, I don't know what your talking about, YOU don't know what your talking about.

btw, in what way are you refering to the thread?

[Zanthorus]

Gack, I don't know who take the prize around for living in the land of makebelieve: you or Drmezel. He's thinking Mao is still alive and you are thinking the CNT can make a comeback.

In case you haven't noticed, the CNT is still going.

[Bud Struggle]

In case you haven't noticed, the CNT is still going.

Oh I know. Right up there with the IWW.

You guys really think you got a plan there? I'm all for making things better--but Gee--do you really think this stuff from 1935 has got a future?

If I wasn't a responsible person and if they guys that work for me weren't my friends I'd bring in the IWW to bargain for them. I would love for the worker to SEE these guys from the IWW. They'd string me up for bringing in a union. Then they'd bar-b-cue the IWW representatives.

I've been in the IWW. I've seen them. Can the CNT be far behind?

[RGacky3]

Oh I know. Right up there with the IWW.


Do some reaserch dumbass, in Spain and France the CNT is a major league union.


You guys really think you got a plan there? I'm all for making things better--but Gee--do you really think this stuff from 1935 has got a future?


It does'nt have to be the IWW, or organizations from the 1930s, anything that works is what I'll support.


I would love for the worker to SEE these guys from the IWW. They'd string me up for bringing in a union. Then they'd bar-b-cue the IWW representatives.

Well, so far the IWW has done really well in many places, bringing starbucks to its knees in some cases, yeah its a small union, but so what, its not about the organization its about the principle, I support other organizations that do the right thing.


I've been in the IWW. I've seen them. Can the CNT be far behind?

Do your reaserch.


ALso Bud, waht the hell does any of this have to do with my thread, please stick to the point.

[Jimmie Higgins]

With the polarization of the United states right now, what I think the focus of Socailists in the United States should be right now is progressives (which make up the majority of Americans), I think its a serious mistake to to isolate from the mainstream Amercan center-left.This I totally agree with. A poll from a year ago and one from a few moths ago suggest that 1/3 of people under 30 think that (democratic) socialism is good. In the US there is a lot of polarization (which is why Obama's attempts to hold to the center and be post-partisan appealed to absolutely no one and why his poll numbers took a dive among the left and the right) but also, unfortunately, an organizational vacuum on the left.

However, I think our focus should be on the grass-roots progressives - the ones who are trying to reform their trade-union from within or are local militants in their unions; the ones who are organizing against anti-immigrant racism; the students and teachers fighting budget cuts. These people should get our support and be cut a little slack when we talk to them about politics... if they have mixed views on things, we should try and argue our side and win them to it, but if not we should still try and work with them and show them why the know-it-all radical really is right about this stuff:lol:.

For the "progressive leaders" and organizations with establishment ties, we should not be as forgiving. Bernie Sanders and Kusinich may have good intentions and some good ideas sometimes, but their social role is not the same as some Kusinich supporter in the mid-west who desperately wants to see and end to the war or universal healthcare. It's the same with groups like MoveOn or a lot of the NGOs - when they stopped talking about the Iraq war and discouraged people not to protest, it was a political move on their part - it wasn't like it is with individual activists or local grass-roots groups who my drop-out because of political confusion or demoralization. So with a lot of these groups, I think we do need to be harder because when they are involved with mass protests, they are in competition with us over wining the grassroots people to a political view - one at odds with our view (as in leading the anti-war sentiment towards voting for Democrats or towards some kind of imperialist-friendly anti-war position).

But things are volatile right now, so we should be careful to not just write people or organizations off without looking at what they are politically attempting to do at the moment. With mass pressure, a reformist group might veer to the left - conversely a normally decent group might veer right during a downturn in struggle. So I think we should try to work with anyone we can if it helps build the movement in a militant and increasingly radical way, but we also need to maintain our own politics and independence.

[graymouser]

Its fine to criticize them from a left point of view, but to stick dogmatically to only Marxist organizations is a huge mistake, we need to pull the progressives left, not let the only pressure be from the right, the democratic party is by no means a progressive party, however, there are many real progressives in the party, that genuinely want to stop corporate power.
It's not accidental that the Democratic Party is called the "Graveyard of Social Movements." This is exactly what the Democrats do for a living: they get people who would otherwise be out fighting for real differences, and incorporate them into the bourgeois electoral machine that they maintain. The progressives in the Democratic Party are not the major sources of funding, and frankly they have no power within it. The purpose of their bigger figureheads is to keep people within the party, hoping that next time they'll get a toehold. Meanwhile these "progressives" vote for imperialists like Obama.

[Bud Struggle]

Well things may not be moving as fast as some people like--but they definitely are moving. 30 years ago is was some sort of hidden disgrace for people to be gay--now I was at Disneyworld (on business) on Friday and there were having "Gay Days" with corporate sponsorships, etc. The Gays (not without difficulty and opposition) worked their agenda and over time and are getting the freedom and equality they are looking for from people and businesses. Obviously they have a long way to go--but they have made progress in a relatively short amount of time.

For that matter so has the women's movement and the ecological movement the Black/Brown--and other leftist movements. Obviously, these aren't Communist and they aren't all perfect but it does show that if enough people band together they can get things done.

[RGacky3]

It's not accidental that the Democratic Party is called the "Graveyard of Social Movements." This is exactly what the Democrats do for a living: they get people who would otherwise be out fighting for real differences, and incorporate them into the bourgeois electoral machine that they maintain. The progressives in the Democratic Party are not the major sources of funding, and frankly they have no power within it. The purpose of their bigger figureheads is to keep people within the party, hoping that next time they'll get a toehold. Meanwhile these "progressives" vote for imperialists like Obama.

I understand that the progressives vote for imperialists like Obama, However, now that Obamas real colors have shown, he's loosing progressive support by the truck loads.

When it comes to the progressives supporting democrats, thats really something were not gonna win on, we're not gonna make them all out revolutionaries any time soon, why? They still believe in American republican democracy. What has NOT been done, is a real threat from the democrats from the left, its happening somewhat now with progressives challenging right wing democrats, what I think the redical left in this country needs to do is engage the progressives to pull them further, and hold democrats more to the fire, for example, if a candidate says he supports single payer, but refuses to fight for it, he should be held accountable to progressives, and have that brought to light by the left.


Well things may not be moving as fast as some people like--but they definitely are moving. 30 years ago is was some sort of hidden disgrace for people to be gay--now I was at Disneyworld (on business) on Friday and there were having "Gay Days" with corporate sponsorships, etc. The Gays (not without difficulty and opposition) worked their agenda and over time and are getting the freedom and equality they are looking for from people and businesses. Obviously they have a long way to go--but they have made progress in a relatively short amount of time.

For that matter so has the women's movement and the ecological movement the Black/Brown--and other leftist movements. Obviously, these aren't Communist and they aren't all perfect but it does show that if enough people band together they can get things done.

The gay movement and womens movement are somewhat different because they are more liberal movements and not progressive (they don't challenge corporate hedgemony), those are all good and well, but what needs to happen more is holding democrats to the fire when it comes to corporate influence, and supporting progressives when it comes to local and national fights against corporate power, in my opinion thats the big fight of today.

[Bud Struggle]

The gay movement and womens movement are somewhat different because they are more liberal movements and not progressive (they don't challenge corporate hedgemony), those are all good and well, but what needs to happen more is holding democrats to the fire when it comes to corporate influence, and supporting progressives when it comes to local and national fights against corporate power, in my opinion thats the big fight of today.


No it isn't different. It's the same. That's what comes from your One Note Johnny approach to politics (the big corportations are killing us and must be distroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

Change comes at different times on different levels and little by little the world will become aware and change for the better. As far as the big fight today against corporate power--no one is fighting corporations--even the Communists.

[RGacky3]

No it isn't different. It's the same. That's what comes from your One Note Johnny approach to politics (the big corportations are killing us and must be distroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda.)


No it IS different, the powers that are against banking reform or public heathcare are much much much more powerful than those that are against gay rights, and they are different in nature.


Change comes at different times on different levels and little by little the world will become aware and change for the better. As far as the big fight today against corporate power--no one is fighting corporations--even the Communists.

People are trying too, thats the whole point. Allowing gays in disneyland or women to vote does'nt change the power structure much at all, the fight against corporate power is an attempt to shift power.

[RedKnight]

I just wanted to state that it was Michael Harrington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America, and not just Max Schactman, who advocated working as a pressure group within the Democratic Party. This political strategy is known as entryism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism I myself follow this approach, especially as there is no unified, independent, Socialist Party. Even the Communist parties are either fractered, or also work within the Democratic Party, like with the Communist Party U.S.A.

[Dean]

No it isn't different. It's the same. That's what comes from your One Note Johnny approach to politics (the big corportations are killing us and must be distroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

Change comes at different times on different levels and little by little the world will become aware and change for the better. As far as the big fight today against corporate power--no one is fighting corporations--even the Communists.

Some of us are. (http://exiledonline.com/saving-john-galt/)